4 Aarpv. TrumpAlito, J., responding to a 24-hour response, he was poised to control the expeditive. See the ECF documentation. 41, 3-4. However, the Court of Justice resolved the government’s obligation to respond after the applicant’s lawyers rushed to appeal. id. , 4-5. • Our previous paper claims that the applicant is at risk of immediate removal, but provided little concrete support for the allegations. Members of this court repeatedly argued that an appeal in which all warrants are injunctive can only be granted if “the legal right in question is clear and yet only in the most important and brave.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 US (2020) (Roberts, CJ, agrees to reject application for injunction request) (Slipop., 2 at 2) (11thed. 2019)); Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. See also Sebelius, 568 US 1401, 1403 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., in Chambers). Luxv. Rodrigues, 561 US 1306, 1307 (2010) (Roberts, CJ, in Chambers). -” •Although this Court did not hear directly from the Government regarding any planned deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in this matter, an at- torney representing the Government in a different matter, JGG v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-766 (DC), in-formed the District Court in that case during a hear- ing yesterday evening that no such deportations were then planned to occur either yesterday, April 18, or today, April 19. • Although the Court provided class-wide relief,
